My statement is the these protocells are what Fox thinks how life came into
being from the material. However, the protocells themselves are not alive.
That is a theory since he cannot produce living things from these protocells
that he "assembled" in the lab. Moorad

>Nope, they exist outside any theory. THe issue to be settled is "are they
life or not".>>---------->From: Moorad Alexanian[SMTP:alexanian@uncwil.edu]>Sent: Friday, May 07, 1999 5:55 AM>To: Ami Chopine; evolution@calvin.edu>Cc: asa@calvin.edu>Subject: Re: Life in the Lab -- Fox and the Nobel Prize>>My guess is that the most you can say about these protocells is that they>are the "protolife" in someone's theory of how life came into being.
Nothing>more. Moorad>>-----Original Message----->From: Ami Chopine <amka@vcode.com>>To: evolution@calvin.edu <evolution@calvin.edu>>Cc: asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>>Date: Friday, May 07, 1999 1:13 AM>Subject: Re: Life in the Lab -- Fox and the Nobel Prize>>>>Is it possible that while the protein protocells may be alive, they are
not>>the way life began on earth? IOW, they are not the common ancestor of all>>life. If this is so, then we haven't truly achieved the goal of repeating>by>>experimentation what happened at the dawn of life.>>>>Also, why must we pick one scenario over another? Why not a combination of>>say, random replicators, clay, and protenoids?>>>>It is therefore possible that item 4 [information] may for>>> some part describe more advanced features that did not appear until
later>>in>>> the history of the origin of life. Their absence would not disqualify a>>> protocell from being alive if the protocell didn't need them to live.>>>>>> Kevin L. O'Brien>>>>>>